I'm not white, but I do sympathize with white Americans

[Mortimer]

Maybe it's just my pedantic disposition, but I expect people to use more precise terminology......words like "native" denote indigenous or aboriginal, neither of which would apply within the parameters of your general argument for today's world (IE notwithstanding the history of European settler-colonialism in the U.S., Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, etc.).

Aside from the Adivasi tribes, the people who suffered the colonial enormities in the Indian subcontinent were themselves not indigenous or "native" to the land, so your employment of the term itself is improper (all things considered).

As for the Bengal famine and Churchill....you're nitpicking a very particular piece of history from 70+ years ago and positing that such is part of a wider continuum. You are trying to incorporate the historic struggle against British colonialism in India as part of a larger, more expansive paradigm of POC rebellion against "White crimes" when it isn't anything of the sort.

PS: "Whites" didn't commit those crimes, the English did. I am loathe to subsuming Scots, Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, Danes, Swedes, etc. into that foray which should rightfully identify only one European ethnic group as the perpetrator.

I think you somehow missed the point. I never said anything about todays world. That was an erroneous assumption you made on your part. i was speaking about racism and its evident abundance in the populations of the white races due to historical facts. I asked you to point out a race other than whites that globally and systematically attempted to exterminate natives (brown people). It simply cant be that difficult for anyone with even a mediocre intelligence to grasp what I am asking.

Maybe it's just my pedantic disposition, but I expect people to use more precise terminology......words like "native" denote indigenous or aboriginal, neither of which would apply within the parameters of your general argument for today's world (IE notwithstanding the history of European settler-colonialism in the U.S., Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, etc.).

Aside from the Adivasi tribes, the people who suffered the colonial enormities in the Indian subcontinent were themselves not indigenous or "native" to the land, so your employment of the term itself is improper (all things considered).

As for the Bengal famine and Churchill....you're nitpicking a very particular piece of history from 70+ years ago and positing that such is part of a wider continuum. You are trying to incorporate the historic struggle against British colonialism in India as part of a larger, more expansive paradigm of POC rebellion against "White crimes" when it isn't anything of the sort.

PS: "Whites" didn't commit those crimes, the English did. I am loathe to subsuming Scots, Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, Danes, Swedes, etc. into that foray which should rightfully identify only one European ethnic group as the perpetrator.

I think you somehow missed the point. I never said anything about todays world. That was an erroneous assumption you made on your part. i was speaking about racism and its evident abundance in the populations of the white races due to historical facts. I asked you to point out a race other than whites that globally and systematically attempted to exterminate natives (brown people). It simply cant be that difficult for anyone with even a mediocre intelligence to grasp what I am asking.

Uhh....you might wanna re-read your posts. You ask me to point out another race "doing" what white people had....."doing" infers currently ongoing/present tense, assuming you never paid attention during middle-school English classes of course...

Also, your continued use of "brown" with reference to "native" people is also deeply problematic. It is such a relative term. Are the "native" peoples of Europe, East Asia, SS Africa, etc. "brown" in pigmentation? LOL.

BTW, in terms of sheer numbers, far more people of SS African descent were killed by Semitic Arabs than they were Europeans.....just some food for thought.

Uhh...You may want to reread my posts. All past tense. This was my orginal question you replied to. Deflecting is not working for you.

"When you can name me one other race that invaded the globe and killed off native brown people then you might have a point. After that then you need to point out that same race that waged a campaign of propaganda structured to promote themselves as a superior race"

Btw, care to explain why you collectivize things by using the word "white"?

How are Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Scots, Irish, Welsh, Poles, Serbs, etc. guilty of the purported sins committed by the English, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch colonial empires?

Because thats what white people made up when they called themselves white. I call people by the names they wish to be called unless it interferes with my beliefs.

Exactly. They want to be called White. And thats how they see themselfes.

 

[RoshanNair]

Its wrong that only Adivasis are native to India. India is a huge melting pot influenced by both westerneuroasia and southeasterneuroasia. All ethnic groups are mixed there and there is not much difference in skin tone in india. I dont know the indian context how they divide themselfes but its wrong that upper castes are "aryan" lower castes "indigenous" they are all just brown.

Completely immaterial. Adivasi tribes are the sole indigenous peoples in the whole of India.

If you think that legitimate, conferred indigenous status is predicated upon skin complexion or other superficial phenotypic expressions.....I really dunno what to tell you, lol

PS: No, not all ethnic groups are mixed. Even today, inter-ethno/cultural marriages are frowned upon.

 

[RoshanNair]

Its wrong that only Adivasis are native to India. India is a huge melting pot influenced by both westerneuroasia and southeasterneuroasia. All ethnic groups are mixed there and there is not much difference in skin tone in india. I dont know the indian context how they divide themselfes but its wrong that upper castes are "aryan" lower castes "indigenous" they are all just brown.

Completely immaterial. Adivasi tribes are the sole indigenous peoples in the whole of India.

If you think that legitimate, conferred indigenous status is predicated upon skin complexion or other superficial phenotypic expressions.

PS: No, not all ethnic groups are mixed. Even today, inter-ethno/cultural marriages are frowned upon.

 

[RoshanNair]

Maybe it's just my pedantic disposition, but I expect people to use more precise terminology......words like "native" denote indigenous or aboriginal, neither of which would apply within the parameters of your general argument for today's world (IE notwithstanding the history of European settler-colonialism in the U.S., Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, etc.).

Aside from the Adivasi tribes, the people who suffered the colonial enormities in the Indian subcontinent were themselves not indigenous or "native" to the land, so your employment of the term itself is improper (all things considered).

As for the Bengal famine and Churchill....you're nitpicking a very particular piece of history from 70+ years ago and positing that such is part of a wider continuum. You are trying to incorporate the historic struggle against British colonialism in India as part of a larger, more expansive paradigm of POC rebellion against "White crimes" when it isn't anything of the sort.

PS: "Whites" didn't commit those crimes, the English did. I am loathe to subsuming Scots, Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, Danes, Swedes, etc. into that foray which should rightfully identify only one European ethnic group as the perpetrator.

I think you somehow missed the point. I never said anything about todays world. That was an erroneous assumption you made on your part. i was speaking about racism and its evident abundance in the populations of the white races due to historical facts. I asked you to point out a race other than whites that globally and systematically attempted to exterminate natives (brown people). It simply cant be that difficult for anyone with even a mediocre intelligence to grasp what I am asking.

Maybe it's just my pedantic disposition, but I expect people to use more precise terminology......words like "native" denote indigenous or aboriginal, neither of which would apply within the parameters of your general argument for today's world (IE notwithstanding the history of European settler-colonialism in the U.S., Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, etc.).

Aside from the Adivasi tribes, the people who suffered the colonial enormities in the Indian subcontinent were themselves not indigenous or "native" to the land, so your employment of the term itself is improper (all things considered).

As for the Bengal famine and Churchill....you're nitpicking a very particular piece of history from 70+ years ago and positing that such is part of a wider continuum. You are trying to incorporate the historic struggle against British colonialism in India as part of a larger, more expansive paradigm of POC rebellion against "White crimes" when it isn't anything of the sort.

PS: "Whites" didn't commit those crimes, the English did. I am loathe to subsuming Scots, Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, Danes, Swedes, etc. into that foray which should rightfully identify only one European ethnic group as the perpetrator.

I think you somehow missed the point. I never said anything about todays world. That was an erroneous assumption you made on your part. i was speaking about racism and its evident abundance in the populations of the white races due to historical facts. I asked you to point out a race other than whites that globally and systematically attempted to exterminate natives (brown people). It simply cant be that difficult for anyone with even a mediocre intelligence to grasp what I am asking.

Uhh....you might wanna re-read your posts. You ask me to point out another race "doing" what white people had....."doing" infers currently ongoing/present tense, assuming you never paid attention during middle-school English classes of course...

Also, your continued use of "brown" with reference to "native" people is also deeply problematic. It is such a relative term. Are the "native" peoples of Europe, East Asia, SS Africa, etc. "brown" in pigmentation? LOL.

BTW, in terms of sheer numbers, far more people of SS African descent were killed by Semitic Arabs than they were Europeans.....just some food for thought.

Uhh...You may want to reread my posts. All past tense. This was my orginal question you replied to. Deflecting is not working for you.

"When you can name me one other race that invaded the globe and killed off native brown people then you might have a point. After that then you need to point out that same race that waged a campaign of propaganda structured to promote themselves as a superior race"

Yeah, and I responded to that while under the impression that you were referring to legit native people IE indigenous people by pointing out the injustices suffered by various indigenous groups across the world.....and then your very next post you clarified that you were strictly speaking re: the suffering of non-white people as a whole, and you used the word "doing".......not "have done".

You are oblivious to the true meaning of the words you toss around. Not my problem.

No you didnt respond to it unless you dont know what a globe is. You totally missed the point of my question. Looks like you have struck out.

LOL yes.....the guy who sees oppression through the myopic lens of White-on-non white is now preaching to people about learning about the globe.....great stuff.

 

[Mortimer]

Its wrong that only Adivasis are native to India. India is a huge melting pot influenced by both westerneuroasia and southeasterneuroasia. All ethnic groups are mixed there and there is not much difference in skin tone in india. I dont know the indian context how they divide themselfes but its wrong that upper castes are "aryan" lower castes "indigenous" they are all just brown.

Completely immaterial. Adivasi tribes are the sole indigenous peoples in the whole of India.

If you think that legitimate, conferred indigenous status is predicated upon skin complexion or other superficial phenotypic expressions.....I really dunno what to tell you, lol

PS: No, not all ethnic groups are mixed. Even today, inter-ethno/cultural marriages are frowned upon.

No they are all mixed. No one is white in india, no one fully black. They are to varying degrees mixed. All have westerneuroasian+indigenous ancestry.

 

[Asclepias]

I think you somehow missed the point. I never said anything about todays world. That was an erroneous assumption you made on your part. i was speaking about racism and its evident abundance in the populations of the white races due to historical facts. I asked you to point out a race other than whites that globally and systematically attempted to exterminate natives (brown people). It simply cant be that difficult for anyone with even a mediocre intelligence to grasp what I am asking.

I think you somehow missed the point. I never said anything about todays world. That was an erroneous assumption you made on your part. i was speaking about racism and its evident abundance in the populations of the white races due to historical facts. I asked you to point out a race other than whites that globally and systematically attempted to exterminate natives (brown people). It simply cant be that difficult for anyone with even a mediocre intelligence to grasp what I am asking.

Uhh....you might wanna re-read your posts. You ask me to point out another race "doing" what white people had....."doing" infers currently ongoing/present tense, assuming you never paid attention during middle-school English classes of course...

Also, your continued use of "brown" with reference to "native" people is also deeply problematic. It is such a relative term. Are the "native" peoples of Europe, East Asia, SS Africa, etc. "brown" in pigmentation? LOL.

BTW, in terms of sheer numbers, far more people of SS African descent were killed by Semitic Arabs than they were Europeans.....just some food for thought.

Uhh...You may want to reread my posts. All past tense. This was my orginal question you replied to. Deflecting is not working for you.

"When you can name me one other race that invaded the globe and killed off native brown people then you might have a point. After that then you need to point out that same race that waged a campaign of propaganda structured to promote themselves as a superior race"

Yeah, and I responded to that while under the impression that you were referring to legit native people IE indigenous people by pointing out the injustices suffered by various indigenous groups across the world.....and then your very next post you clarified that you were strictly speaking re: the suffering of non-white people as a whole, and you used the word "doing".......not "have done".

You are oblivious to the true meaning of the words you toss around. Not my problem.

No you didnt respond to it unless you dont know what a globe is. You totally missed the point of my question. Looks like you have struck out.

LOL yes.....the guy who sees oppression through the myopic lens of White-on-non white is now preaching to people about learning about the globe.....great stuff.

I didnt say anything about oppression. Obviously you have really confused yourself again. I said racism. People that look exactly alike oppress each other. When one does it on the basis of race its racism.

 

[Mortimer]

Adivasis are a diverse bunch themselfes. Some are mongoloid some are proto-australoid some are negrito etc. Are the adivasis of northeastern india who are mongoloid just as native as the adivasis who are proto-australoid somewhere in south india or are they different or all the same?

 

[RoshanNair]

Its wrong that only Adivasis are native to India. India is a huge melting pot influenced by both westerneuroasia and southeasterneuroasia. All ethnic groups are mixed there and there is not much difference in skin tone in india. I dont know the indian context how they divide themselfes but its wrong that upper castes are "aryan" lower castes "indigenous" they are all just brown.

Completely immaterial. Adivasi tribes are the sole indigenous peoples in the whole of India.

If you think that legitimate, conferred indigenous status is predicated upon skin complexion or other superficial phenotypic expressions.....I really dunno what to tell you, lol

PS: No, not all ethnic groups are mixed. Even today, inter-ethno/cultural marriages are frowned upon.

No they are all mixed. No one is white in india, no one fully black. They are to varying degrees mixed. All have westerneuroasian+indigenous ancestry.

Again, completely immaterial.....how someone appears to the naked eye isn't the determinant of what makes someone indigenous to a particular region. There is an entire UN dictum on this stuff.

As much as I dislike Jews, I can't discount their rightful claim as the indigenous peoples to the land of Israel.....seeing of course that that claim is now contested soly between them and the Arabs.

 

[Mortimer]

Its wrong that only Adivasis are native to India. India is a huge melting pot influenced by both westerneuroasia and southeasterneuroasia. All ethnic groups are mixed there and there is not much difference in skin tone in india. I dont know the indian context how they divide themselfes but its wrong that upper castes are "aryan" lower castes "indigenous" they are all just brown.

Completely immaterial. Adivasi tribes are the sole indigenous peoples in the whole of India.

If you think that legitimate, conferred indigenous status is predicated upon skin complexion or other superficial phenotypic expressions.....I really dunno what to tell you, lol

PS: No, not all ethnic groups are mixed. Even today, inter-ethno/cultural marriages are frowned upon.

No they are all mixed. No one is white in india, no one fully black. They are to varying degrees mixed. All have westerneuroasian+indigenous ancestry.

Again, completely immaterial.....how someone appears to the naked eye isn't the determinant of what makes someone indigenous to a particular region. There is an entire UN dictum on this stuff.

As much as I dislike Jews, I can't discount their rightful claim as the indigenous peoples to the land of Israel.....seeing of course that that claim is now contested soly between them and the Arabs.

thats quiete the nonsense because very deep in history no ones indigenous anywhere. according to that logic. native americans came from siberia. and adivasis are diverse are the chinese looking adivasis the same as the black looking adivasis?

 

[RoshanNair]

Uhh....you might wanna re-read your posts. You ask me to point out another race "doing" what white people had....."doing" infers currently ongoing/present tense, assuming you never paid attention during middle-school English classes of course...

Also, your continued use of "brown" with reference to "native" people is also deeply problematic. It is such a relative term. Are the "native" peoples of Europe, East Asia, SS Africa, etc. "brown" in pigmentation? LOL.

BTW, in terms of sheer numbers, far more people of SS African descent were killed by Semitic Arabs than they were Europeans.....just some food for thought.

Uhh...You may want to reread my posts. All past tense. This was my orginal question you replied to. Deflecting is not working for you.

"When you can name me one other race that invaded the globe and killed off native brown people then you might have a point. After that then you need to point out that same race that waged a campaign of propaganda structured to promote themselves as a superior race"

Yeah, and I responded to that while under the impression that you were referring to legit native people IE indigenous people by pointing out the injustices suffered by various indigenous groups across the world.....and then your very next post you clarified that you were strictly speaking re: the suffering of non-white people as a whole, and you used the word "doing".......not "have done".

You are oblivious to the true meaning of the words you toss around. Not my problem.

No you didnt respond to it unless you dont know what a globe is. You totally missed the point of my question. Looks like you have struck out.

LOL yes.....the guy who sees oppression through the myopic lens of White-on-non white is now preaching to people about learning about the globe.....great stuff.

I didnt say anything about oppression. Obviously you have really confused yourself again. I said racism. People that look exactly alike oppress each other. When one does it on the basis of race its racism.

K....then on that note, why are you only railing against "Whites" and not the Arab Muslims who systematically killed upwards of 120 million SSA slaves?

 

[Asclepias]

Its wrong that only Adivasis are native to India. India is a huge melting pot influenced by both westerneuroasia and southeasterneuroasia. All ethnic groups are mixed there and there is not much difference in skin tone in india. I dont know the indian context how they divide themselfes but its wrong that upper castes are "aryan" lower castes "indigenous" they are all just brown.

Completely immaterial. Adivasi tribes are the sole indigenous peoples in the whole of India.

If you think that legitimate, conferred indigenous status is predicated upon skin complexion or other superficial phenotypic expressions.....I really dunno what to tell you, lol

PS: No, not all ethnic groups are mixed. Even today, inter-ethno/cultural marriages are frowned upon.

No they are all mixed. No one is white in india, no one fully black. They are to varying degrees mixed. All have westerneuroasian+indigenous ancestry.

Again, completely immaterial.....how someone appears to the naked eye isn't the determinant of what makes someone indigenous to a particular region. There is an entire UN dictum on this stuff.

As much as I dislike Jews, I can't discount their rightful claim as the indigenous peoples to the land of Israel.....seeing of course that that claim is now contested soly between them and the Arabs.

Thats weird because the Jews themselves know they are not indigenous to the land of israel. The people that were indigenous were the Canaanites. Do you have a link showing that?

 

[Asclepias]

Uhh...You may want to reread my posts. All past tense. This was my orginal question you replied to. Deflecting is not working for you.

"When you can name me one other race that invaded the globe and killed off native brown people then you might have a point. After that then you need to point out that same race that waged a campaign of propaganda structured to promote themselves as a superior race"

Yeah, and I responded to that while under the impression that you were referring to legit native people IE indigenous people by pointing out the injustices suffered by various indigenous groups across the world.....and then your very next post you clarified that you were strictly speaking re: the suffering of non-white people as a whole, and you used the word "doing".......not "have done".

You are oblivious to the true meaning of the words you toss around. Not my problem.

No you didnt respond to it unless you dont know what a globe is. You totally missed the point of my question. Looks like you have struck out.

LOL yes.....the guy who sees oppression through the myopic lens of White-on-non white is now preaching to people about learning about the globe.....great stuff.

I didnt say anything about oppression. Obviously you have really confused yourself again. I said racism. People that look exactly alike oppress each other. When one does it on the basis of race its racism.

K....then on that note, why are you only railing against "Whites" and not the Arab Muslims who systematically killed upwards of 120 million SSA slaves?

I didnt mean to make you emotional. I said whites were the most racist group. If that bothers you then prove they arent or drop out of the conversation and spare your feelings.

 

[RoshanNair]

Adivasis are a diverse bunch themselfes. Some are mongoloid some are proto-australoid some are negrito etc. Are the adivasis of northeastern india who are mongoloid just as native as the adivasis who are proto-australoid somewhere in south india or are they different or all the same?

Adviasi is a blanket term, dummy. Adivasi tribes throughout various regions of India have rights as indigenous peoples which supersede that of non-Adivasis in the same region.

 

[Asclepias]

Its wrong that only Adivasis are native to India. India is a huge melting pot influenced by both westerneuroasia and southeasterneuroasia. All ethnic groups are mixed there and there is not much difference in skin tone in india. I dont know the indian context how they divide themselfes but its wrong that upper castes are "aryan" lower castes "indigenous" they are all just brown.

Completely immaterial. Adivasi tribes are the sole indigenous peoples in the whole of India.

If you think that legitimate, conferred indigenous status is predicated upon skin complexion or other superficial phenotypic expressions.....I really dunno what to tell you, lol

PS: No, not all ethnic groups are mixed. Even today, inter-ethno/cultural marriages are frowned upon.

No they are all mixed. No one is white in india, no one fully black. They are to varying degrees mixed. All have westerneuroasian+indigenous ancestry.

Again, completely immaterial.....how someone appears to the naked eye isn't the determinant of what makes someone indigenous to a particular region. There is an entire UN dictum on this stuff.

As much as I dislike Jews, I can't discount their rightful claim as the indigenous peoples to the land of Israel.....seeing of course that that claim is now contested soly between them and the Arabs.

thats quiete the nonsense because very deep in history no ones indigenous anywhere. according to that logic. native americans came from siberia. and adivasis are diverse are the chinese looking adivasis the same as the black looking adivasis?

Some people just believe what they are told by white sources. Thank god I am not confined to believing what white people tell me.

 

[RoshanNair]

Its wrong that only Adivasis are native to India. India is a huge melting pot influenced by both westerneuroasia and southeasterneuroasia. All ethnic groups are mixed there and there is not much difference in skin tone in india. I dont know the indian context how they divide themselfes but its wrong that upper castes are "aryan" lower castes "indigenous" they are all just brown.

Completely immaterial. Adivasi tribes are the sole indigenous peoples in the whole of India.

If you think that legitimate, conferred indigenous status is predicated upon skin complexion or other superficial phenotypic expressions.....I really dunno what to tell you, lol

PS: No, not all ethnic groups are mixed. Even today, inter-ethno/cultural marriages are frowned upon.

No they are all mixed. No one is white in india, no one fully black. They are to varying degrees mixed. All have westerneuroasian+indigenous ancestry.

Again, completely immaterial.....how someone appears to the naked eye isn't the determinant of what makes someone indigenous to a particular region. There is an entire UN dictum on this stuff.

As much as I dislike Jews, I can't discount their rightful claim as the indigenous peoples to the land of Israel.....seeing of course that that claim is now contested soly between them and the Arabs.

thats quiete the nonsense because very deep in history no ones indigenous anywhere. according to that logic. native americans came from siberia. and adivasis are diverse are the chinese looking adivasis the same as the black looking adivasis?

The difference being that there is no recorded history of the Native Americans having forcibly and violently extirpated the previous inhabitants of the western hemisphere.

 

[Mortimer]

Adivasis are a diverse bunch themselfes. Some are mongoloid some are proto-australoid some are negrito etc. Are the adivasis of northeastern india who are mongoloid just as native as the adivasis who are proto-australoid somewhere in south india or are they different or all the same?

Adviasi is a blanket term, dummy. Adivasi tribes throughout various regions of India have rights as indigenous peoples which supersede that of non-Adivasis in the same region.

Ok I dont know how Indians refer to themselfes within their own society etc. I know they have positive discrimination for sheduled tribes and castes etc. Which is good.

 

[RoshanNair]

Its wrong that only Adivasis are native to India. India is a huge melting pot influenced by both westerneuroasia and southeasterneuroasia. All ethnic groups are mixed there and there is not much difference in skin tone in india. I dont know the indian context how they divide themselfes but its wrong that upper castes are "aryan" lower castes "indigenous" they are all just brown.

Completely immaterial. Adivasi tribes are the sole indigenous peoples in the whole of India.

If you think that legitimate, conferred indigenous status is predicated upon skin complexion or other superficial phenotypic expressions.....I really dunno what to tell you, lol

PS: No, not all ethnic groups are mixed. Even today, inter-ethno/cultural marriages are frowned upon.

No they are all mixed. No one is white in india, no one fully black. They are to varying degrees mixed. All have westerneuroasian+indigenous ancestry.

Again, completely immaterial.....how someone appears to the naked eye isn't the determinant of what makes someone indigenous to a particular region. There is an entire UN dictum on this stuff.

As much as I dislike Jews, I can't discount their rightful claim as the indigenous peoples to the land of Israel.....seeing of course that that claim is now contested soly between them and the Arabs.

Thats weird because the Jews themselves know they are not indigenous to the land of israel. The people that were indigenous were the Canaanites. Do you have a link showing that?

The Canaanites no longer exist in this world as a distinct and distinguishable people. They were all killed and/or assimilated over the millennia....

Thus, the contest for legitimate land rights is now between Jews and Arabs.

 

[JQPublic1]

smh @ that ugly comment.

I am part Cherokee, part Irish, and whatever...maybe that's it, and blonde as I can be. So what am I....besides a mutt. LOL

Peroxide and hair dye works on Cherokee and Irish hair too.

 

[Mortimer]

Its wrong that only Adivasis are native to India. India is a huge melting pot influenced by both westerneuroasia and southeasterneuroasia. All ethnic groups are mixed there and there is not much difference in skin tone in india. I dont know the indian context how they divide themselfes but its wrong that upper castes are "aryan" lower castes "indigenous" they are all just brown.

Completely immaterial. Adivasi tribes are the sole indigenous peoples in the whole of India.

If you think that legitimate, conferred indigenous status is predicated upon skin complexion or other superficial phenotypic expressions.....I really dunno what to tell you, lol

PS: No, not all ethnic groups are mixed. Even today, inter-ethno/cultural marriages are frowned upon.

No they are all mixed. No one is white in india, no one fully black. They are to varying degrees mixed. All have westerneuroasian+indigenous ancestry.

Again, completely immaterial.....how someone appears to the naked eye isn't the determinant of what makes someone indigenous to a particular region. There is an entire UN dictum on this stuff.

As much as I dislike Jews, I can't discount their rightful claim as the indigenous peoples to the land of Israel.....seeing of course that that claim is now contested soly between them and the Arabs.

thats quiete the nonsense because very deep in history no ones indigenous anywhere. according to that logic. native americans came from siberia. and adivasis are diverse are the chinese looking adivasis the same as the black looking adivasis?

The difference being that there is no recorded history of the Native Americans having forcibly and violently extirpated the previous inhabitants of the western hemisphere.

Where is the evidence that Indians killed adivasis and who are the "indians" etc. Actually I read that some adivasis are new comers from southeast asia http://joais.org/papers/vol2no1/2. N.K.Das 11-34.pdf

there are austro-asiatic tribes (linked to southeast asia) there are dravidians and there are proto-australoids (austrics) there are tibeto-burmese people etc. who is the original inhabitant of india?

 

[Asclepias]

Its wrong that only Adivasis are native to India. India is a huge melting pot influenced by both westerneuroasia and southeasterneuroasia. All ethnic groups are mixed there and there is not much difference in skin tone in india. I dont know the indian context how they divide themselfes but its wrong that upper castes are "aryan" lower castes "indigenous" they are all just brown.

Completely immaterial. Adivasi tribes are the sole indigenous peoples in the whole of India.

If you think that legitimate, conferred indigenous status is predicated upon skin complexion or other superficial phenotypic expressions.....I really dunno what to tell you, lol

PS: No, not all ethnic groups are mixed. Even today, inter-ethno/cultural marriages are frowned upon.

No they are all mixed. No one is white in india, no one fully black. They are to varying degrees mixed. All have westerneuroasian+indigenous ancestry.

Again, completely immaterial.....how someone appears to the naked eye isn't the determinant of what makes someone indigenous to a particular region. There is an entire UN dictum on this stuff.

As much as I dislike Jews, I can't discount their rightful claim as the indigenous peoples to the land of Israel.....seeing of course that that claim is now contested soly between them and the Arabs.

Thats weird because the Jews themselves know they are not indigenous to the land of israel. The people that were indigenous were the Canaanites. Do you have a link showing that?

The Canaanites no longer exist in this world as a distinct and distinguishable people. They were all killed and/or assimilated over the millennia....

Thus, the contest for legitimate land rights is now between Jews and Arabs.

What did any of that have to do with your claim that Jews say they are indigenous to Israel? I still dont see your proof.